You can and you should. I will join in too.
But never the Prophet. Its a matter of human rights.
What you do in private spheres is a different matter. But to use the parliament for such hideous intentions. Not a wise deal
Well if you reserve death-threats (and i'm talking here to the ones who would use death-threats) for *just* insults against your Prophet and your Allah, then you can probably make that work on even a global level.
But i strongly advise you Muslims not to push this strategy any inch beyond that.
And yes, i'll admit it was in part people like me who did not stand up to Wilders anti-Mohammed ideas strongly enough in the past.
Perhaps Wilders was even the kind of guy not to change under anything but death-threats,
because he did not listen when i advocated in the past for him to address the misbehaviors of some of the modern-day Muslim(a)s instead of the behavior of your Prophet.
however, Wilders is intent on publicizing the dangers of Islam.
and you can't go silencing all criticism of some of the aspects of current-day Islam (which i fear can be just as embarassing to some Muslims especially if we'd put in disclaimers of how only some Muslims display the behavior we publicize in a critical light), with the same death-threat strategy.
you'll have to restrict yourselves to critiques of current-day western behavior, and you'll have to adjust the sting to the west to be about equal to the sting we currently try to employ against you.
if you don't, you'll escalate ethnic tensions and inter-country tensions.
and ultimately that is, for muslim fundamentalists/extremists at their current technology level (which is enforced to stay that way), a kind of suicide in which you pull many others into death with you.
i don't see any reason any God would reward someone for that; first stirring up tensions and then dying in the way i just described.
there's nothing Holy about such wars, despite what some Muslim cleric/terrorist-leader might want you to believe.
